These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3477753)

  • 21. The influence of storage conditions on film characteristics of Ektaspeed plus and Ultra-speed films.
    Platin E; Nesbit SP; Ludlow JB
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1999 Feb; 130(2):211-8. PubMed ID: 10036844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Radiographic solution contamination.
    Hardman PK; Tilmon MF; Taylor TS
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1987 Jun; 63(6):733-7. PubMed ID: 3473399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Is E-speed dental film more sensitive to storage than D-speed dental film?
    Petersson A; Lindh C; Nilsson M
    Swed Dent J; 1987; 11(4):159-62. PubMed ID: 3480614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Influence of scattered radiation and tube potential on radiographic contrast: comparison of two different dental X-ray films.
    Helmrot E; Carlsson GA; Eckerdal O; Sandborg M
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1991 Aug; 20(3):135-46. PubMed ID: 1807997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Diagnostic imaging assessment of experimental intraoral "folded film".
    Ludlow JB
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1987 Jul; 64(1):123-9. PubMed ID: 3475649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Automatic processing: effects of temperature and time changes on the sensitometric properties of light-sensitive films.
    Thunthy KH; Hashimoto K; Weinberg R
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Jul; 72(1):112-8. PubMed ID: 1891230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Factors involved in the high radiographic sensitivity of E-speed films.
    Domon M; Yoshino N
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1990 Jan; 69(1):113-9. PubMed ID: 2296442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A laboratory evaluation of four quality control devices for radiographic processing.
    Rushton VE; Horner K
    J Dent; 1994 Aug; 22(4):213-22. PubMed ID: 7962896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effect of varying processing solution temperature on radiographic contrast and relative film speed of dental film.
    Matthee MJ; Becker PJ; Seeliger JE
    J Dent Assoc S Afr; 1990 Dec; 45(12):525-8. PubMed ID: 2098942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Sensitometric and image quality performance of "rapid" intraoral film processing techniques.
    Czajka J; Rushton VE; Shearer AC; Horner K
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Jan; 69(817):49-58. PubMed ID: 8785621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A clinical comparison of speed group D and E dental x-ray films.
    Horton PS; Sippy FH; Kohout FJ; Nelson JF; Kienzle GC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1984 Jul; 58(1):104-8. PubMed ID: 6589567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Sensitometric evaluation of a new F-speed dental radiographic film.
    Price C
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Jan; 30(1):29-34. PubMed ID: 11175270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Sensitometric comparison of dental films of groups D and E.
    Thunthy KH; Weinberg R
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1982 Aug; 54(2):250-2. PubMed ID: 6956842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparative evaluation of the sensitometric properties of screen-film systems and conventional dental receptors for intraoral radiography.
    Kircos LT; Staninec M; Chou L
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Dec; 68(6):787-92. PubMed ID: 2594331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effects of solution depletion on films developed in the Peri-Pro automatic processor.
    Thunthy KH; Weinberg R
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1984 Jan; 57(1):102-5. PubMed ID: 6582420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effects of developer exhaustion on the sensitometric properties of four dental films.
    Syriopoulos K; Velders XL; Sanderink GC; van Ginkel FC; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Mar; 28(2):80-8. PubMed ID: 10522196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Use of a "sandwich" technique to control image geometry in clinical studies comparing intraoral xeroradiographs and E-speed films.
    Ludlow JB; Hill RA; Hayes CJ
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1988 May; 65(5):618-25. PubMed ID: 3163790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A sensitometric comparison of four dental X-ray films and their diagnostic accuracy.
    Svenson B; Welander U; Shi XQ; Stamatakis H; Tronje G
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Jul; 26(4):230-5. PubMed ID: 9442614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effects of developer depletion on image quality of Kodak Insight and Ektaspeed Plus films.
    Casanova MS; Haiter-Neto F
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Mar; 33(2):108-13. PubMed ID: 15314003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Performance of seven rapid radiographic processing solutions.
    Maddalozzo D; Knoeppel RO; Schoenfeld CM
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1990 Mar; 69(3):382-7. PubMed ID: 2314865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.